Heavy-handed? - Looking at the smacking debate

I feel sorry for parents today. So many people tell them not to smack their children. They are told that smacking only modifies behaviour in the short-term. They are told that it models violent behaviour and can therefore teach the child to be violent towards others.

If a child’s behaviour must be changed then they are told that it can be done more effectively by other non-violent means. The logic of these arguments, based as they are on the social psychology of aggression and the behaviourist theory of reinforcement, seems to be irrefutable.

Yet many parents remember being smacked as children and do not believe it did them any harm. Grandparents and others from the older generation can tell them to be stricter with their children and to use ‘a good smack’ if necessary. In addition, if Christian parents turn to the Bible they find that it seems to endorse physical punishment, as do some of the more conservative churches (1). So what are parents to do? Nobody wants to be responsible for bringing up violent children, but is not smacking actually making children less violent? Or are they in fact less controllable and less respectful of authority?

Smacking research

A recent meta-analysis concluded that smacking is no less effective, and may sometimes be better, than other disciplinary tactics in modifying children’s long-term behaviour (2). It was also concluded that, contrary to the social psychology theory of aggression, smacking does not promote any more, and sometimes promotes less, anti-social violence than other disciplinary techniques.

Importantly, the authors distinguished between different types of smacking. ‘Conditional’ smacking is non-abusively smacking a child who responds defiantly to milder tactics such as time out. ‘Customary’ smacking is smacking as it is typically used, based mostly on studies of smacking frequency without specifying how it was used. ‘Overly severe’ smacking describes the excessive use of force or slapping the face. Finally, ‘predominant’ smacking is the term used when smacking is the parent’s primary disciplinary method.

Conditional smacking reduced anti-social behaviour significantly more than did ten of the 13 alternative disciplinary tactics (such as reasoning, removal of privileges, love withdrawal, ignoring and restraint). There was no difference compared to the other three tactics: a brief forced isolation (based on three studies), a combination of non-physical punishment and reasoning (one study) and verbal prohibition (one study).

Only overly severe and predominant smacking compared unfavourably with other disciplinary responses. Most research on conditional smacking has been done on two-to-six-year-olds. It would, however, appear that age-appropriate, conditional smacking to enforce milder disciplinary tactics can form part of an effective package of responses for both the short and long term. When so used, milder disciplinary tactics become more effective by themselves, rendering smacking less necessary subsequently.

Religious families

In my own research I asked people in Scotland and England about the parenting they had received as children (3). Specifically, I asked about the person who had ‘the most influence’ on them as a child, about the behaviour modification methods that that person used and about that person’s religious activity, if any. The vast majority of people named their father or mother as the person who had the most influence on their early life. People who had been brought up by parents who read the Bible, attended church, prayed and talked about their God and faith were no more likely than others to have experienced physical punishment before the age of 12: after that they actually reported less physical punishment.

What I found most interesting was that people who had religiously active parents were more likely to say that the physical punishment they experienced was due to a child-oriented reason: that is, they perceived the parent as being motivated by love and concern for the child and a desire to see the child behave appropriately. They were less likely to say that the physical punishment they received was due to a parent-oriented reason: that is, out of parental anger, the need to inflict pain or to show who is boss.

Religiously active parents were also less likely to discipline by the withdrawal of affection or approval. Overall, religiously active parents were rated more highly by their children in terms of sensitivity to needs, fairness of discipline, understanding of feelings and the degree of trust the child had in the parent. The essential element here seemed to be whether the parent talked about God and faith. I found that these results were the same whether or not the child had continued with the parent’s religious activity.

Where do we go from here?

It would seem from the research evidence that parents can use smacking as an effective disciplinary tactic. It would also appear that, while no one is ever perfect, parents who practise a Christian religious commitment are, on the whole, highly rated by their children, at least when they become adults. I suspect that this is due, at least in part, to the biblical understanding of who a child is. Every child is created in the image of God and is therefore capable of doing good, but is also fallen and so capable of doing evil. Once this is recognised the parent can begin to respond to both good and bad behaviour appropriately.

John Steley is a psychologist with The Mission Practice and InterHealth Worldwide in London. He is a member of Central Baptist Church in Walthamstow.

This article is based on one entitled ‘Researching the Rod' by the same author, which appeared in the autumn 2006 edition of Triple Helix, published by the Christian Medical Fellowship.

References

1. Proverbs 13.24, 22.25, 23.13, 29.15.
2. Larzelere, R.E., Kuhn, B.R. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review 2005: 8(1):1-37.
3. Steley, J.R. Parental Discipline and Religious Commitment as Recalled by Adult Children (Thesis). London: Heythrop College, University of London, 1997.